Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-21 MDD4696

All parties withdrew. Computerjoe's talk 06:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't withdraw. Ardenn 07:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you if we could close the case. You agreed, so....? ~MDD4696 21:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't withdrawing. Ardenn 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request Information

Request made by: Ardenn 02:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

WP:AN/3RR

WP:ANI

Who's involved?

User:Ardenn

Withdrawn. Computerjoe's talk 06:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:WCityMike

I withdraw from participation in this mediation, as I am now taking an indefinite break from Wikipedia. As this is a Mediation Cabal and not Mediation Committee conference, this is an entire voluntary mediation process, and thus I'm fairly certain I have the right to withdraw from informal mediation without damage to my reputation here, should I wish to return. Also, note that this case is no longer on the cabal's active list; I do not believe there is any third-party mediator participating in this process. But in any case, however, I am not here to participate in any new action you wish to open addressing this matter. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am back on Wikipedia. Although I will participate in the resolution of this proceeding if asked, I would do so out of a spirit of goodwill, and my statement of "being back" should not be interpreted as a desire to initiate this process or restart this process. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ardenn has stated "I have no more grievance against you" (link), which I have interpreted as a withdrawal of accusations against me from this mediation case. I thus am (in my mind) considering myself no longer an interested party in this mediation, and will withdraw my observation of same. Thank you. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mdd4696

Withdrawn. Computerjoe's talk 06:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gnetwerker

As User:Ardenn has disappeared, this case is moot, and I withdraw as well. -- Gnetwerker 17:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here. I just have nothing to say. Ardenn 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on?

Mdd4696 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arbitrarily blocked me claiming I violated 3RR, and was incivil, when in fact

WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated 3RR and WP:NPA.

User:Gnetwerker She insulted be by calling me a female.

What would you like to change about that?

I want WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for 24 hours and/or an apology from both.

Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should apologize. [1]

I also want WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to remove his personal attack at Talk:Wikitruth.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Email is fine if necessary.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

No?

...

Mediator response

Evidence

• User talk:Ardenn
• [2]

Vandalism

Speedy Deletion during AfD

3RR violation by WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [3]
• 2nd revert: [4]
• 3rd revert: [5]
• 4th revert: [6]

This refers to the same events as #Vandalism. --Fasten 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Comments by others

I think that the facts in this case speak for themselves and am content to let the case stand on the facts as demonstrated here and in the record currently extant on the Administrator's noticeboard. If the mediator wishes input from me on this matter, I can prepare something, although I will have more time to do so on the weekend. Thank you. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. A little while ago Arden has opened a mediation cabal case "against" me[7]. An anonymous user has suggested that my case be merged with this case since the actions referred to hin this case "directly lead up to" Ardenn opening a case "against" me. I would like to hear the advice of the participants in this case before I take any action. -- noosphere 04:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose I created seperate cases for the reason they are different issues. Ardenn 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Everyone shake hands and move on. Come on, guys! Ardenn, you were trying to game the system with your speedy tag. You can see there's no consensus to delete the article (I voted delete myself but I accept that there is no consensus for it). Even if the article were a re-creation, it should not have been deleted in the first place, and people don't want it to go. Why allow your not liking it to cause so much upset?

And the other side, be nice. Say sorry to the guy and walk away. We're all friends here. No one is going to gain anything from this. Grace Note 06:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I do not have time right now to post a write-up of the situation, but a look through my recent contributions should provide a pretty good idea of what occurred. ~MDD4696 03:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear they are not willing to take place in the mediation process. Ardenn 03:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt either of us would have responded here if we were unwilling. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 03:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On April 19, while a very active AfD debate was underway concerning Wikitruth, Ardenn placed a db-repost notice on the page[8], in addition to the AfD banner that was there. Ardenn, to that point, had not been an especially active commentator in the ongoing discussion on the AfD page, and left no rationale as to why the article should be speedy-deleted while it was under AfD. Kotepho removed the notice[9] and left an explanation in the edit summary. Ardenn replaced the notice[10], it was reverted again by Gnetwerker (me), and added back immediately by Ardenn[11], and again reverted, this time by Margana, and it was added for a fourth time by Ardenn[12], and again removed, this time by Silensor. I made a note on the talk page that another reversion would violate 3RR. The time was 12:53 4/19. At 17:21 on 4/20, or about 28.5 hours later, Ardenn added the db-repost banner three tiems in quick succession [13] [14] [15], each time reverted by WCityMike.

At this juncture, Ardenn listed WCityMike for 3RR violation[16], a vandalism notice on ANI[17], and vandalized his personal page[18]. When an administrator noted agreement with the deletion of the improper speedy, Ardenn posted[19] "Now block him [WcityMike] and be a nice responsible admin". Ardenn then called WCityMike an "asswipe"[20] on the 3RR page, and started suggesting that he had violated NPA by not assuming good faith[21].

This is not a comprehensive list of postings and responses. However, the summary is that Ardenn attempted to "speedy" the Wikitruth page, was reverted by four successive editors, and just after the 3RR horizon expired, did so again, this time being reverted by a single editor (WCityMike). Ardenn then brought WCityMike up on (IMO) false charges, was blocked, and started this proceeding as revenge and retribution for being opposed, naming everyone in sight. Ardenn has acted irresponsibly, violated Wikipedia process, violated 3RR, made personal attacks, and is now abusing the mediation process. If I had the energy, I would bring an ArbCom case against her him, but in writing this summary I have now spent more time than I deem this matter is worth. -- Gnetwerker 01:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You have to go through all dispute resolution methods before you can go to ArbCom. Ardenn 01:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here's what I saw go down:

On April 19, Ardenn tagged the Wikitruth article four times with {{db}} [22] [23] [24] [25]. The article was undergoing an AfD. He was reverted each time by a different editor. On April 21, roughly 30 hours after his first revert, he added the tag four more times [26] [27] [28] [29]. He was reverted each time by WCityMike.

Ardenn then posted a notice on WP:AN/I and WP:AN3. This is where I stepped in, and blocked Ardenn for 1 hour after he posted "Yes, because you see asswipe, you're supposed to assume good faith."

Ardenn then contacted me by email, stating "I will be putting in a request for mediation when the block expires. I feel you were injust in your decision", "At no time did I violate 3RR", and "I'd like you to apologize at WP:AN/3RR for saying I violated 3RR. I can't post on your talk page while blocked." I was writing up a formal explanation for his talk page, and posted it shortly before his block expired [30]. I also copied to note to the 3RR page.

When Ardenn posted {{helpme}} on his talk page, Zsinj and User:Commander Keane both supported my block.

So, my opinions are:

The 3RR rule is not absolute. In this case, I feel Ardenn violated the rule by skimming around the 24 hour time limit, going against the consensus of at least 5 other editors, and by not providing any justification for his actions. I do not believe WCityMike violated the rule because he was reverting bad faith db tags, acting with consensus, and he explained himself both in edit summaries and on the talk page.

I feel that Ardenn was being disruptive, both by violating the 3RR rule and by escalating a minor issue to AN/I and 3RR. I also feel that dragging Gnetwerker into this is being disruptive; he made an honest mistake about Ardenn's gender, and Ardenn is just mad at him for saying "This report is unfounded -- it is Ardenn who is the problem."

I do not think that WCityMike should be blocked, and I do not think any apologies are necessary. I can't help it if you're unhappy with that Ardenn, but I haven't seen any effort on your part to compromise. All I've heard from you are patronizing demands and childish remarks. ~MDD4696 01:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that my contributions are unwelcome to Wikipedia and I should just leave? Ardenn 01:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to play by the rules, we'd love to have you here. ~MDD4696 01:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take a different view: A very brief perusal of User:Ardenn's 4-month history on Wikipedia shows:

1. Several other 3RR violations (and at least one other block):[31][32], and in the the latter case he removed the 3RR notice from his Talk page as "grafitti";
2. Was reprimanded for changing the result of a closed AfD discussion[33]; and
3. Shows numerous other incidents of incivility[34].

So yes, if you would simply go away, I think that would be best. -- Gnetwerker 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user at that last link is a known troll. Ardenn 05:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shold go away if you don't like me. Ardenn 05:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

1. WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:3RR.

2. Mdd4696 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked me for 1 hour, but not WCityMike.

3. 3RR violations are absolute.

4. Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refered to me as a she which was a great insult, and that's the reason I brought her into this. No other. Ignorance is no excuse. (Yes, my referring to her as a female is payback.)

5. It was not my intention to immediately revert the db addition right after 24 hours, I wasn't honestly paying attention to the clock, but it was annoying me because that article does violate the rules.

6. It shouldn't take Mdd4696 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an hour to write up a formal explination.

7. Yes, I did call WCityMike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) an incivil name, but he did the same to me. Fairness is a two way street.

8. You can't bring an ArbCom case without going through all of the WP:DR process, Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and your ignorance is apparent.

9. Gnetwerker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had no need to get involved with the 3RR item, and stuck her nose in where it didn't belong. No one invited her feedback.

10. If all parties involved were truly interested in mediation, they too would show a willingness to compromise. I was the one who started the mediation case, so I must be willing to be here. Ardenn 01:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, 3RR violations are absolute. I was once blocked for 3RR last April Fools day for reverting a joke article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my understanding of policy, the blocking policy is quite clear on the purpose of blocking "In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia". If there is no risk of further disruption blocking serves no point other than being punative, and therefore is inappropriate. --pgk^(talk) 09:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and the 3RR was violated against me. Rules are rules, we cannot choose to pick which ones we want to obey, and which ones we do not. Ardenn 03:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's finished, man. Walk away. This behaviour is not reflecting well on you at all. You are not a plaintiff in a legal case, looking for redress. If you were hard done by, well, I'm sorry, but it's done now and you're not helping make the encyclopaedia by holding a grudge at such great length. By the way, if you did go to the arbcom over this, they'd throw it out. If you keep behaving badly though, they'll take it and you'll be censured. So move on. Grace Note 06:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning to take it to ArbCom, but I won't let it drop. Ardenn 06:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't let it drop, how can someone mediate? Are you unwilling to accept a resolution not entirely in your favor? ~MDD4696 14:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to a resolution not entirely in my favour, but at this point all I want is an apology, or did you miss that? Is that so difficult to do? Ardenn 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Rebuttal

My response is as follows.

I accept and incorporate in full the recounting of the facts as described by Gnetwerker and MDD4696, and thank them for their effort in documenting the history of the incident.

Direct Responses

Violation of WP:AGF (Rebuttant Item #1a)

From WP:AGF, a guideline and not a policy:

"Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith."

After Ardenn first speedy nominated the article, those who believed the article should be kept attempted to discuss the matter on the talk page, as is suggested in the first step of dispute resolution. (link). Ardenn during said discussion had no desire to compromise, accusing others of "POV pushing." He added a NPOV tag but made no effort to improve the neutrality of the article, as noted by Tlogmer on said talk page. He then did not continue the discussion with proponents, but waited for the AfD to conclude.

When the AfD did not result in a delete, Ardenn nearly immediately renominated the article for speedy deletion, using improper criteria, because the article was "annoying him," per above. The article had been rewritten between its original deletion, making his choice of supporting cause improper.

In short, the policy cited supports my actions, as Ardenn had indeed not demonstrated good faith, but instead bad actions. As an editor, I am not required to assume good faith in the face of repeated bad actions.

Violation of WP:NPA (Rebuttant Items #1b and 7)

Ardenn demonstrates an odd sensibility when it comes to personal attacks. Presumably "asswipe" is acceptable, while somehow "bad faith" is not.

Violation of WP:3RR (Rebuttant Item #1c)

Ardenn contacted administrator Earl Andrew at 9:21 pm CST, saying he needed to speak with Mr. Andrew privately on MSN. [35] Mr. Andrew posted to this mediation page 22 minutes after Ardenn's query. [36], and levied a 24-hour ban upon me 9 minutes later [37]. Andrew did so without advising me I was blocked, as required by blocking policy. (WP:BP: "Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages.") — indeed, I first found out of my block when attempting to post an earlier draft of this response late Friday evening. Per my response to item #3 below, struck out as moot but still left in for the record, I don't believe this block to have been based on valid policy, both for my own objections and those of pgk.

Nevertheless, as Ardenn obtained his own justice on this issue outside of the mediation process from an ex parte discussion with an admin, this point is now effectively moot; he got one aspect of his desired punishment.

Absoluteness or Variability of 3RR (Rebuttant Item #3)

From WP:3RR:

"If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." (emphasis added)

The use of a stronger word than "may" was considered in the rule's proposal, and proved an insufficient objection to sway enough "no" votes to defeat the proposal. Thus, the policy as stands fully permits administrators to make judgment calls in enforcing the 3RR rule.

Not just one but three administrators examined the facts of the situation and declined to enforce a 24-hour ban: MDD4696, initially; Zsinj, when Ardenn called out with a {{helpme}} tag; and Commander Keane, when Ardenn called out with a {{unblock}} tag.

As indicated, moot now. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

Ardenn's Gender (Rebuttant Item #4)

Ironically, Ardenn "violates" the WP:AGF guideline by assuming bad faith in assuming that Gnetwerker meant a "great insult" by using female pronouns to describe him. Switch the position of the letters "d" and "r", and you have "Adrenn," which is then two letters from the female name "Adrienne." It seems to me to be a fairly innocent misreading.

Furthermore, Lifehacker recently suggested that people searching for the gender associated with an uncommon name use Google Images to determine the common gender for that name. [38] On a Google Images search for Ardenn, a female photograph is the third result on the first page [39], and the second result on the third page [40].

You know, you're defending Gnetwerker (talk · contribs) but why doesn't she simply tell us what went through her mind? It might clear this up very simply. Also I had on my user page previously that I was thinking of becoming a mason, (it was there at the time this happened) and women can't become masons. Ardenn 22:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, what went through my mind originally was Eve Arden the actress and Elizabeth Arden cosmetics. Not that it matters -- I don't consider attributing femininity to someone as an insult. -- Gnetwerker 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You counterquestion without answering the question of why you're assuming bad faith. After all, WP:AGF, as, wait a minute, you yourself first introduced into this debate. I fail to understand why you feel you can assume bad faith and make personal attacks, then hold those same policies up as protection. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee, Process, etc. (Rebuttant Item #8)

Gnetwerker's knowledge of the process is correct. See item no. 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope.

Gnetwerker Personal Attacks (Rebuttant Item #9)

This item is not a statement but is simply a series of personal attacks against Gnetwerker, as was the phrase "ignorance is apparent" in #8, and the "payback" described in #4. As for the charge of no one "invit[ing] her feedback," Gnetwerker is an admin, and was commenting on items that were brought up on the admin noticeboard.

Compromise (Rebuttant Item #10)

"[S]ettlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions" (link). Ardenn has made no effort to concede absolutely anything in this forum.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that "the mediator has no authority" (see "evidence" box above) and this entire process is voluntary, all parties Ardenn has accused have voluntarily appeared, despite being under no compulsion to do so.

That is arguably at least some concession — to be willing to be present for a discussion — most especially a discussion where this level of vitiriol is being directed at them — when not under compulsion to do so.

It is interesting that he now claims he only seeks an apology; given that he has already arranged for many aspects of his desired punishments to be executed outside of the mediation process, apologies would be the only remaining items he would need in order to get a resolution entirely in his favor. Fortunately, it is the one item entirely under an editor's will.

— WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 20:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one else has made any effort to concede anything as well. Ardenn 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of the style of argument you utilize, in which you respond to others' arguments by not responding to them and instead repeating one of your claims against them. In this case, for example, you've ignored quite literally the entirety of everything I've said and simply repeated your own claim that we are not conceding anything by our voluntary presence here. Since I've already addressed the very same claim before, I won't do so again here, except to note the argumentative "style" itself. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]